|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did Jesus Declare All Food Clean? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Unclean meat in the OT is from "tame." Tame refers to
meat that is continated or polluted, meat that was not designed by the Creator (Jesus) for human consumption The majority of unclean meat is from scavengers; carnovores; birds of prey; and, bottom dwellers. Shrimp, lobster, crab, catfish when placed in continated water can purify thatwater, but the contaminates remain in them. Hogs have up to 19 parasites. Hogs will eat anything and the poisons remain intheir bodies. Noah was aware of the difference between animals designed to be consumed.and animals that we're not. This was centuries before the first Jew (Judah). The death of Jesus (the Creator) did not change the physiology of uncleananimals, nor did it alter their design purposes Jesus and His followers never ate meat that was never designed to be eaten. In the NT two words are used for unclean meat. Akathartos refers to meat that was never ddesigned to be eaten. Koinos refers to meat that is ceremoniallyunclean. For example, meat that was used in idol worship, as was almost all meat sold in the market place Paul had no problem eating koinos meat because he knew that all meat belonged to God. However, he would not eat this meat if it offended someonewho was weak in the faith In Col 2:16 the word meat is from "brosis.'' It means eating, not meat. Also, hand washing for the Pharisees was ceremonially in nature. Hands had to be washed in a prescribed manner. The water had to run down the forearm and off the elbows in a specific manner. It had nothing to do with removing dirt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Some rely on Mark 7:18-19 to support their claim that Christians can now eat
unclean (contaminated, polluted, unhealthy) meat. However, the issue in Mark 7 isn't about clean/unclean meat, but unwashedhands. It should be clear, to everyone with an open mind, that Mark 7 is about thePurification of food by the body's digestive process, and it's elimination of minor impurities as the result of unwashed hands. The Pharisees, like Jesus, ate only clean meat. This was not what they were debating. It was never an issue for them. ItHand washing for the Pharisees was highly ritualistic, and they attempted to force their beliefs on Jesus, but He rejected them. 1 Cor 3:16-17 tells us that we are the temple of God, and that God will destroythose who defile the temple. Eating unclean meat is no different than smoking or drinking to excess. Isa 66:15-17 is a prophecy about the 2nd coming of Christ, and at that timeeating swine meat is still an abomination. Read Rev 18:2 about unclean birds. When God led Israel out of Egypt, after 430 years in captivity, He had toreintroduce them to His laws. His laws had existed from the beginning and Anyone who follows Him must submit to these laws. There is no difference between Jews and Greeks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Sorry to respond to this post instead of your second post but this is shorter, and
I do not know how to bracket. In any event, I am replying to Romans 14. The theme(s) here is twofold. One is fasting; the other is food associated withIdol worship, which was wide widespread As for fasting, Paul made it clear that it had to be voluntary, and which day or days one fasted on was unimportant. Some would eating only certain foodsWhile fasting, others practiced total abstinance. Also, Paul points out that otherwise clean meat (meat that was designed forhuman consumption), even though associated with idol worship, does not make it intrinsically unfit to eat. Paul was not discussing Biblical dietary laws. This matter had long been settledby God In both verses 14 & 20, the word food or meat isn't in the original wording. NoSpecific object is mentioned relative to cleanness or uncleanness. The sense is that nothing is unclean ( koinos) common or ceremonially defiledof itself There is also no doubt that Mark 7 is about " hand washing." Read vs. 2-5. This is God's take on it: Some animals are clean and fit, designed for human consumption.Some animals are contaminated/polluted, not for human consumption. Therefore, not all animals are to be eaten be humans Many human cannot keep this simple fact straight in their minds. For them it is: Some animals are clean and fit, designed for human consumption.Some animals are contaminated/polluted, not for human consumption Therefore,all animals are fit for humans to eat. I did not read your entire post. My new residence does not have internet service,And this little phone and my eyes make it difficult. I will respond to any posts as long as they are somewhat briefI
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
In your support for eating contaminated/polluted meat, you are using the
same basic verses and philosophy that I used for several decades. Even when I became absolutely (beyond a shadow of doubt) convinced thateating scavengers was a sin, it took me a good while to give them up. Today, those of us who won't eat pork or other continated meat are lucky.My wife cooks turkey ham, and several have stated that it is as good as any ham they have had. Also excellent is turkey bacon; turkey balogna; turkey spam; and, turkey sausage. The reason God forbids those He loves (and he loves us all) is that scavengersomnivores, carnivores, creeping things, and animals of prey are highlyd contaminated and toxic. These animals are no different today than they were then. Just as some vegetation was not designed for human consumption,the same goes for animals. I've heard some say that now we are living under grace, which frees us from thedietary laws. However, there' s not one single case in the OT where someone earned eternal life. It has always been a matter of God's grace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Unclean animals have there place in the world, but it's not on the dinner plate.
Hogs and other scavengers we're designed to clean our environment. inPhiladelphia pigs have eaten the city's garbage and sewage for more than a century, saving the city millions every year. Some breeders regularly feed their hogs raw sewage. And, when hogs arestacked in cages, piglets in the bottom cages thrive on offal from hogs in the top cages. Chicken farmers often keep hogs in order to dispose of dead chickens. New golf courses under construction oftentimes use hogs to root out and eatpoisonous snakes. Swine have so much toxins in their bodies that a way is needed to get rid of it.Their digestive system is nowhere adequate for this task. Hogs have ducts under their hooves that are utilized to ooze poisons from theirbodies. Sometimes these ducts ( called nursing sores) become plugged. When this happens breeders must kill the animals and qquickl. All of this toxin is then sold to consumers in pork meat. Shellfish and other scavengers are no better for us. Eating bottom-dwellers andanimals of prey are no more healthy than vultures, bats, and other filthy scavengers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
This life isn't a popularity contest. What the world thinks about God's dietary
laws is worthless. God's word is the only thing that matters. He has ordered us (His followers) not to eat contaminated/polluted meat. Romans 12:1 tells us to present our body as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable. Disobeying God is not holy. Verse 2 commands us not to conform to the world. Our behavior is not to be determined by what the world thinks When we believe God (not only believe in, but believe His words) He will continue to show us more and more of His truths This is a different topic, but by believing God, I now understand that the Bible clearly teaches that Christ was dead and entombed for 72 hours And, that He came out of the tomb very late on the 7th day Sabbath. When one refuses to believe God, God will no longer teach that individual His truths
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
At least you admit that the meat mentioned is contaminated. While you have aitted this much, just go ahead and state the obvious: contaminated meat is contaminated meat regardless of the date on the calendar?
Archaeology has revealed that sophisticated ovens and cooking devices we'recommon during Biblical timess. They could cook meat as well as we can now. Also, they u/s the importance of thoroughly cooking meat. When one eats contaminated .meat he is eating everything that that animal has eaten. When one eats shrimp he eats the intestines and digestive tract as well. Cooking poisons won't render poisons harmless. A little common sense can go a long ways here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
A Consumer Report test of commerically raised catfish revealed them to have bacteria counts of more than 27,000,000 per gram. Fish is unfit to eat at 10,000,000 per gram.
Jesus once fed 5000 people with a few loaves of bread and a few fish. Another time it was 4000. In both instances He ordered all scraps collected that none be wasted. Yet, this same Jesus (Mark 5) allowed 2000 head of swine to plunge into the sea. If swine was fit for human consumptionn, He would not have wasted the meat. No one but you, yourself, has said that God poisoned (contaminated, polluted) meat. A rational mind never made this stupid statement, an irrational mind did. And to state that certain animals were not permitted to be eaten because they are contaminated in a religious sense is silly. It reeks of desperation. God does not withhold good things from those who love Him. He only wiithholds harmful things, just as any loving parent does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Minchin is a fool. He is an atheist and evolutionist but certainly not an empiricist.
Evolution has nothing to do with science. It is simply a false belief system. One in which adherents cling to regardless of evidence. When Dr. Schwierter discovered soft tissue in a (supposedly) 75,000,000 year old T-Rex fossil. It sent the evolutionist community into a frenzy. They would not accept that the fossil had pliable veins, muscle, and collagen, even though nearly two dozen tests had been performed on it. Many of these so-called open-minded evolutionists refused to believe what they were observing. Some are on tecord as saying that they would never change their world view, regardless of the evidence Instead of accepting the obvious ( that Dinos are only thousands of years old) they insist that iron preserved the soft tissue. C14, which has a half life of roughly 5730 years, should have no detectable amount on fossils more than 75,000 years old. Yet, what we observe is thousands of fossils with significant amounts of C14 present. Now there are many fossils with soft tissue (squishy) in them. There are multiple dozens of eyewitnesse accounts of dino sightings. Alexander the Great; Marco Polo; Pliny; St. Georgee; and, Herodotus are just a few of reputable humans who have seen Dinos; yet, open-minded evolutionists reject these observations. Reliefs, etchings, and drawings of Dinos on pottery, rocks, an caves are also rejected by them, even though they were done before science even knew what Dinos look like What we observe is that humans produce humans; dogs produce dogs; dolphins produce dolphins; and, oak trees produce oak trees. In other words, kind produce same kind. Anything else is just wishful thinkin. And, wishful thinking is exactly what evolutionists base their views on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
There is nothing contaminated about chicken. Chickens do not scavengers for dead meat; they are not scavengers in that sense. They are foragers.
I know that there was a.discussion about chicken being unclean in the late 1800's. It's been a while since I read the article Chickens are not "birds of prey"; "creeping thing"; "creeping thing that flies"; "bottom feeder"; or an animal or bird condned by God A much tougher question for me was that of tuna. Tuna have fins and to a degree scales, but not many. Because of doubt I refrain from tuna. Instead of searching Google for loopholes, or trying to cast doubt on meat that is acceptable, you might cut out meat that you know God forbids and pray for the wisdom to know the difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Catholicism has nothing to do with me. Catholicism is nothing more than the revised " Babylonian Mystery Religion," condemned so harshly in Rev 17 & 18.
It is also the two-horned beast in Rev 13, who appears as a lamb but speaks as a dragon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I can tell that you are frustrated. And why wouldn't you be? Your only defense is to deny, deny, deny. I am now used to evolutionists doing this.
Your name calling rreflects your character, not mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I don't have time to read every post. And, it's not only the time, it one finger typing on this phone and using reading glasses for the first time.
However, I will get to every response, just have patience. I lead a busy life. In any event, HeSheIt is ok, as long as you pronounce it He-cheez-its.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I"ve made an excellent case, based on the Bible and common sense. I have seen nothing to alter my views in the least.
Looking back over the posts, I have seen nothing but opinions based on faulty human philosophy. For me, the Bible is the final authority.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Dr. Schweitzer was shocked to discover soft tissue inside a T-Rex fossil. This was in Stark contrast with her false world view based on evolution. Not wanting to accept what she was observing she performed nearly two dozen tests on the fossil. She was eventually forced to accept that the tissue was pliable. The veins we're flexible.
However, she still clings to her misguided world view. And so do the other evolutionists who refuse to believe what they observe. No amount of evidence/proof will change their minds. About them God has stated that "professing themselves to be wise they became fools." Romans 1:22. These fools tried to explain that iron in the blood had preserved the tissue for 75,000,000 years. It would take a fool to believe this crap. Since Mary Schweitzer's soft tissue discovery, other fossils are being found with soft tissue. What we observe is that "kind produce kind." Nothing contrary to this has ever been observed.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024